Is the consumer really king? The path to sustainable consumption.

In the United States, and in much of the world that shares aspects of US Business culture, it is common to say the consumer is king.  Politicians of parties across the ideological spectrum speak about consumer sovereignty as if it is an ordained right.  Neo-classical economists blithely assume the conditions of perfect markets in their theories and models, and proclaim that the consumer is always sane, always correct – and that the actions of many consumers will serve the larger social good.  The development of capitalism created the conditions for the development and distribution many innovations that have improved the lives of people around the world.  Just think back to the world that your grandparents grew up in, where people who owned an icebox and a radio were considered middle class.

However, today global consumption is on an unsustainable path of growth.  Global populations inexorably increase, energy resources decline and become more expensive to obtain by the day, and the ability of the biosphere to sustain the throughput of resources that our consumption requires is diminishing.  How did we get here?  If the consumer is king, and can do no wrong, how did we move onto this unsustainable path?  First of all, regarding consumer sovereignty, it is inaccurate to lay the culpability for purchasing decisions entirely on the lap of consumers.  Marketers are adept at creating needs and wants where they did not exist before.  We consumers apply meaning to, and use our purchases as a sort of language, or shorthand, to denote status.  Governments subsidize and incentivize certain behaviors, like the pervasive subsidies in energy industries.  Governments even encourage consumption through monetary and tax policy.  So the idea that the consumer is king is problematic.  So, the question remains, how did we get to the point where consumption is unsustainable?

We have long treated the resources that come from the Earth not as finite commodities, but rather as our dominion.  For example, we charge homeowners for the extraction, delivery, and disposal of potable water, but we do not consider the water itself a finite resource.  We have only recently considered what it takes to maintain healthy watersheds, to ensure sustainable water supplies.  However, water is essential to the manufacture of most consumer goods.  How can the price of those goods not reflect the value of the finite resource, fresh water?  When water supplies dry up, water will have to be obtained in the energy intensive process of desalination.  Fossil fuel energy supplies, like water, are finite resources.  We humans are not good at planning for the long term of future generations.  The concept of the Seventh Generation, which originated in The Great Law of the Iroquois, asks whether the decisions made today will benefit descendents seven generations into the future.  A home products company that aims to inspire that kind of long-term thinking adopted the Iroquois principle in their name.  However, Seventh Generation is a rarity in the business world today.  The assumption by many in society today is that resources will never decline, that we will always find a new source or supply to maintain our exponential growth.  That thinking is leading us on a path toward decline.

Can we create a new prosperity, one that is sustainable?  To do so we will have to consider resource use from a perspective of our collective future, and beyond our individual perspective.  For some people, that may mean sacrifice.  Both father and son President Bush declared that “The American way of life is not negotiable” when considering how to confront climate change.  The problem is that the American way of life, as it stands today, is just not sustainable.  Both the government and communities of individuals must create policies, incentives, and actions to promote a new kind of consumption, and a new consumer mindset. We must strive for quality, minimize throughput of resources, and consider the entire life cycle of products, ensuring that materials can be reused or recycled.  We must design our communities so that we plan for the long term, and think generations ahead, planning for a future with expensive energy and finite resources.  Many of the consumption decisions we make on a daily basis are habits that people don’t consider – we need to design products so that consumers are aware of both what the product provides, and what the cost is.  However, it is not enough to buy ‘green’ products, we must reconsider what we really need.  To create a sustainable consumption, we will all need to tread carefully and purposely into the future.  Otherwise, we consumers will find ourselves unprepared for the future we create.

The great potential of Atlantic offshore wind

Life never ceases to amaze me.  On Sunday, a multi-millionaire businessman, maker of the Segway motorized scooters died while riding one of his scooters – he plunged 80 feet over a limestone cliff into a river.  Jimi Heselden, a former miner, died at the age of 62, with a fortune estimated at $263 Million.  He was riding one of the Segway X2 offroad scooters, near his home. This reminds me that no matter how rich or powerful, no matter how permanent things seem, everything is impermanent.

If you think that is crazy, then check this out.  After the BP Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the recent explosion on another oil rig, we still look to the Oceans for oil reserves.  However, the environmental group Oceana just released a report showing that offshore wind development on our Atlantic coast has more capacity and is more cost effective than drilling for oil reserves:

“On the Atlantic coast, an area targeted for expansion of oil and gas activities, offshore wind can generate nearly 30% more electricity than offshore oil and gas resources combined. In addition, wind development would cost about $36 billion less than offshore oil and gas production combined, while creating about three times as many jobs per dollar invested than fossil fuel production. Based on conservative assumptions for offshore wind and generous assumptions for offshore oil and natural gas, this study found that by investing in offshore wind on the East Coast, rather than offshore oil and gas, Americans would get more energy for less money while protecting our oceans.”

The study looks at 11 states on the Eastern seaboard, and examines how they make power now, and the capacity for offshore development.   The beauty of offshore wind is that capacity sits next to major population centers along the East Coast.  As this study shows, offshore wind can produce much of our electricity load:

“In addition to these obvious benefits, offshore wind potential is best where population is largely focused, and could power much of the East Coast. Delaware, Massachusetts and North Carolina could generate enough electricity from offshore wind to equal current electricity generation. Other East Coast states such as New Jersey, Virginia and South Carolina could supply 92%, 83% and 64% of their current electricity generation with offshore wind, respectively.”

Why aren’t we shifting to this outstanding resource?  Right now in Rhode Island, an offshore wind development is in the works that will provide much needed jobs, as well as clean energy.  However, some Rhode Island ratepayers still resist because they want to enjoy subsidized fossil power that doesn’t account for externalities like health costs and greenhouse gas emissions.  Currently, the development is tied up in Court.  The state utility commission finally approved the deal in August but the Attorney General appealed the decision to the State Supreme Court.

In any rate it seems high time to start development of offshore wind.  As this timely report shows, wind power is more cost effective and more plentiful than oil reserves on the Atlantic Coast, and doesn’t have the costly externalities of fossil fuels.  Our grandchildren will thank us.